Gorsuch now counts 55 supporters in the Senate, just below the 60 votes need to pass the supermajority threshold for a nominee

Erica Werner, The Associated Press

Thursday, April 6th, 2017

Erica Werner, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON – A Senate showdown is at hand over President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, and it could change the Senate and the court for years to come.

The confrontation will play out Thursday as 44 Democrats and independents try to block the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch by denying Republicans the 60 votes needed to proceed to final passage.

Republicans led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., intend to respond by unilaterally changing Senate rules to remove the 60-vote filibuster requirement for Gorsuch and all future Supreme Court nominees, reducing it to a simple majority in the 100-member Senate.

Democrats escalated their attacks against Gorsuch ahead of key votes set for Thursday, portraying him as an ally of the powerful and an enemy of the weak. Republicans defended him, accusing Democrats of trying to block Gorsuch out of frustration over Trump’s election victory.

“Democrats would filibuster Ruth Bader Ginsburg if President Donald Trump nominated her,” McConnell said, naming one of the more liberal sitting justices. “There is simply no principled reason to oppose this exceptional, exceptional Supreme Court nominee.”

Democrats begged to differ, returning again and again to McConnell’s decision last year to deny consideration to then-President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, who was ignored for nearly a year by Senate Republicans after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Instead McConnell kept Scalia’s seat open, a calculation that is now paying off hugely for Republicans and Trump, who will be able to claim the biggest victory of his presidency to date if Gorsuch is confirmed as expected.

“For the first time in history, we are considering a nominee for a stolen Supreme Court seat, and that alone should be reason for everyone who cares about this institution to turn down this nominee,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., as he wrapped up a 15-and-a-half-hour overnight talk-a-thon to underscore his party’s opposition to Gorsuch.

If the manoeuvring plays out as expected it will set the stage for a final confirmation vote on Gorsuch Friday, allowing him to join the court in time to hear the final set of cases this term.

Senators on both sides of the aisle lamented the trajectory they were on toward the Senate rules change, though they themselves were in position to prevent it from happening and failed to do so.

Moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said roughly 10 senators of both parties worked over the weekend to come up with a deal to stave off the so-called “nuclear option,” as the rules change is known, but couldn’t come to agreement. In 2005, a bipartisan deal headed off GOP plans to remove the filibuster barrier for lower-court nominees, but in 2013 Democrats took the step, leaving the filibuster in place only for Supreme Court justices.

And now, with political polarization at an extreme, the Senate is on the verge of killing off the Supreme Court filibuster, the one remaining vestige of bipartisanship on presidential appointments. For now the filibuster barrier on legislation will remain, though many fear it could be the next to go.

“I fear that someday we will regret what we are about to do. In fact, I am confident we will,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. “It is imperative we have a functioning Senate where the rights of the minority are protected regardless of which party is in power at the time.”

Nonetheless, McCain was prepared to vote with McConnell on the rules change, saying he felt he had no choice.

Gorsuch now counts 55 supporters in the Senate: the 52 Republicans, along with three moderate Democrats from states that Trump won last November – Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana. A fourth Senate Democrat, Michael Bennet from Gorsuch’s home state of Colorado, has said he will not join in the filibuster against Gorsuch but has not said how he will vote on confirmation.

I would imagine this goes on for two days;
Then Gorsuch is confirmed on Friday via the 51 Majority?

I just don't understand why the democrats have decided to go all out over this nominee ? he doesn't seem that bad and surely worse people the republicans could of suggested

he's also filling a previously conservative judges seat so its not changing the balance and it clearly be the next opening that would truly alter the make up of the court

they've surely decided the supreme court was critical to there agenda and if its not filled with liberal judges then there agenda is at risk , they clearly had planned to use the court to further there liberal agenda . its really the only reason gay marriage is legal in heavily religious and deep red states like Alabama and Texas . they never would of allowed it if not for the court decision

He is a young Conservative judge who will sit on the bench for 30 years;

The dream was always to have a Liberal majority on the Supreme Court, Gorsuch's nomination swashed that for at least a decade and only assuming there isn't another appointment under this President.

(The video runs 15minutes, but the argument against partisanship is the first five minutes. It's worth watching the whole thing if you want to understand the Senate tradition with regard to such nominations.)

The Senate will change the rule so the nomination can proceed, and forever hence, Supreme Court nominations will be partisan affairs.

The Senate will change the rule so the nomination can proceed, and forever hence, Supreme Court nominations will be partisan affairs.

I have no sympathy for the Democrats at all in this instance;
While I am sympathetic to the situation with Judge Garland the GOP played their hand and held back a nomination six months prior to the election on the hope their nominee would win.

And they did.
Right now this has nothing to do with the nominee and everything to do with the way the nominee got there.

Allowing this to get to a point where the 51 option will be pulled is reckless for everyone.

There is a pretty simple solution here if the Democrats really want Garland;
I would imagine that the Senate and White House would jump at the opportunity to nominate Garland to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg seat, she is 84 and it may be a good deal to try and make.

( the vote was mostly along party lines , were seeing proof that if the republicans had not won those close senate races last fall there might of never been a way to appoint any non liberal judges to the supreme court as democrats seem willing to try and block anyone )

Gorsuch hysteria on the left: Here's the real reason why Democrats have been so partisan about Trump's pick

John Lott

By John R. Lott
·Published April 06, 2017
· FoxNews.com

Some ask why Democrats are filibustering Judge Gorsuch, who has received accolades from even some of the most partisan, liberal lawyers. But a clash is inevitable — if not over this Supreme Court nominee, then surely over the next. Democrats are about to launch the first, partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee, forcing an end to Senate rules that have helped foster centuries of bipartisanship.

But while everyone is discussing the partisanship over Judge Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation, the real question is being ignored: what has caused this increased rancor?

There is a lot at stake. In fact, there is more at stake than ever before.

The Supreme Court has recently considered all kinds of questions that never would have come up before about half a century ago. Can proving discrimination against a few female, Walmart employees serve as proof that the company discriminated against 1.3 million female employees? Does the Federal government have the power to determine who is a religious minister? Are residents undergoing training at a hospital to be considered students or employees? Is carbon dioxide, part of the very air that we breathe out, a pollutant that the EPA can regulate? Does the Constitution forbid prayer at school football games and graduation ceremonies?

When more is at stake, people fight harder to win. That general rule explains a lot, from how competitively people play sports to how hard they fight to win business contracts and elections. Two baseball teams playing in the seventh game of the World Series are going to play harder than two teams competing in August with no chance of making the playoffs. It explains why campaign spending has gone up at the size of government has increased.

The same is true of judicial confirmations. The Supreme Court and judges generally are much more powerful and involved in every aspect of our lives than they were 50 years ago.

The judiciary's expanding sphere of influence is manifested by the increase in federal cases — which has far outstripped America’s population growth. Since the 1960s, the number of circuit court cases has increased from 21 per million Americans to 223 per million. District court cases have grown over the same period from 448 to 1,252 per million Americans.

Entire branches of law only recently came into existence as new government agencies were formed. In the 1960s, the Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) were created. In the 1970s, many new regulatory bodies sprang up such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

Each of these organizations created a host of new, often controversial regulations that fall under the jurisdiction of federal courts. Existing agencies were also granted new regulatory powers, resulting in a greater number of lawsuits.

There is yet another factor. Courts have increasingly become legislative bodies prone to essentially rewriting the law. As hard as it is to believe, before about eighty years ago it wasn’t that unusual for Republicans and Democrats to appoint judges from the other party. It didn’t matter so much, because judges could almost always be expected to enforce the laws as they were written. But long gone are the times when Republican President Herbert Hoover appointed a Democrat to the Supreme Court.

My book, "Dumbing Down the Courts," shows that the length of confirmations and the rate at which nominations are defeated has moved very much in tandem with this expansion of judicial power. From 1900 through Franklin Roosevelt, the average Supreme Court confirmation took 17 days from nomination to confirmation. From Truman to Ford, it increased to 31 days. Since Reagan, it went up to 74 days.

Fortunately, if you are anguished by the partisan rancor over judicial confirmations, there is a solution: shrink the role of government.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a columnist for FoxNews.com. He is an economist and was formerly chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission. Lott is also a leading expert on guns and op-eds on that issue are done in conjunction with the Crime Prevention Research Center. He is the author of nine books including "More Guns, Less Crime." His latest book is "The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies (August 1, 2016). Follow him on

The Senate confirmed Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court on Friday, filling the critical ninth seat that has been vacant for over a year and capping a tumultuous debate that saw Republicans overhaul the way the chamber operates in order to overcome what they described as an unprecedented Democratic filibuster.

The 54-45 vote, in which three Democrats crossed party lines to support the appeals court justice, is expected to restore a 5-4 conservative tilt on the bench. Once sworn in, Gorsuch will join the court and begin to hear cases, in the seat once held by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February 2016.

“He’s going to make the American people proud,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said.

Republicans lauded Gorsuch as an eminently qualified jurist and a fitting successor to Scalia. But Democrats accused him of giving evasive answers during his confirmation hearing, and claimed his past rulings showed a tendency to favor business interests over workers. More broadly, Democrats remain furious that Republicans under McConnell’s leadership blocked consideration of former President Barack Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland, in turn allowing Trump to nominate Gorsuch.

These partisan tensions exploded on the Senate floor this week, as Democrats mounted a filibuster against Gorsuch, prompting Republicans to use what’s known as the “nuclear option” Thursday to force a final vote.

Each party blamed the other for the escalation, accusing the other side of damaging long-standing institutions.

“Damage was done to our democracy,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said Friday. “Raw political power has been exercised to break the rules and norms of this body.”

But McConnell claimed that Republicans only triggered the nuclear option to “restore norms” that Democrats had defied.

Republicans pursued that course after Democrats blocked the nominee on Thursday, denying him the 60 votes needed to proceed to a final roll call. McConnell in turn executed a series of parliamentary maneuvers that resulted in the threshold being lowered to 51 votes. With that standard, Gorsuch easily advanced to the final vote on Friday.

McConnell said he made the move “for the sake of our country.”

McConnell’s predecessor as Senate majority leader Harry Reid, now retired, took the first step down the “nuclear” road by lowering the threshold for other nominees in 2013 – a controversial move Republicans frequently brought up on the road to Friday’s final vote.

But lowering the threshold for a Supreme Court pick is a more significant step. It means for the foreseeable future, the minority party will have significantly less leverage to oppose any nominee to the highest court in the land, no matter who is president.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said there will be “less faith in the Supreme Court” going forward.

Republicans say Democrats have been unfair to an otherwise qualified nominee and have wrongly cast him as an ideologue.

“Rarely has this body seen a nominee to the Supreme Court so well-qualified, so skilled, [with] such command of constitutional jurisprudence, with such an established record of independence and such judicial temperament,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Friday.

The three Democrats who voted for Gorsuch were North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp, West Virginia's Joe Manchin and Indiana's Joe Donnelly -- all moderate Democrats facing challenging reelection bids next year in red states.

In other words, it is the intrusion of government into every aspect of life that makes the
Supreme Court more important and gives it a political role?

Maybe the problem is the expansion of the federal government itself?

In the American system, many of these areas of jurisdiction properly belong to the states, but they have been usurped by the federal government, often for practical reasons such as funding. But it has gone overboard.

The legal basis for this expansion is because the sainted FDR threatened to expand the Supreme Court if they didn't allow what had been unconstitutional in Herbert Hoover's term.

Ever since, the Supreme Court appointments have had political significance that is greater than their purely legal significance ever since. Now they have become partisan, and will likely remain so.

(CNN)When Neil Gorsuch takes his seat on the Supreme Court he will be warmly received by his eight new colleagues who have toiled away on a short staffed bench for more than a year.

There are plenty of cases that have piled up ready for his review and his may be the deciding vote.

As he faces hot button issues, court watchers and his colleagues will scour his opinions and comments from the bench for any clues to his jurisprudence.

What will he bring to the court? Most critically, a fifth vote in any deadlocked cases. He's an eloquent writer, a quick study and no shrinking violet during oral arguments. On some issues, like religious liberty, he has an extensive paper trail of judicial opinions from his decade on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. He joined one opinion, for instance, ruling in favor of a closely held business that objected to the so-called contraceptive mandate in Obamacare.

"This isn't the case, say, of a wily businessman seeking to use an insincere claim of faith to as cover to avid a financially burdensome regulation," he wrote.

In other areas, he might even be farther to the right than Antonin Scalia, the man he will replace. Gorsuch has questioned, for instance, whether when a law is ambiguous courts must defer to the interpretation adopted by the federal agency charged with enforcing it. He's written a book on assisted suicide where he opposes giving critically ill patients drugs to bring about death. Conservatives hope his views might put him in their camp when reviewing restrictions on abortion.

But there are a whole swath of issues where little is known of his jurisprudence. Indeed, he has never ruled squarely on Roe v. Wade, the Second Amendment or same sex marriage. He hasn't done a lot on voting rights issues or the death penalty. But the White House and conservative groups take comfort that he shares the same judicial philosophy of Scalia. Like Scalia, Gorsuch believes the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original public meaning. Conservatives believe that could solidify his position on the right wing of the bench.

Professor Lee Epstein, of the Washington University in St. Louis, has studied Gorsuch and places him in the "conservative category," roughly in the same ideological range as Justice Samuel Alito and Scalia.

"We predict he'll be a reliable conservative voting to limit gay rights, uphold restrictions on abortion and invalidate affirmative action programs," she said.
"More generally, if we use Alito as our guide, we expect Gorsuch to reach conservative decisions in almost two-thirds of all cases and over 70% of non-unanimous decisions — meaning he will be significantly more conservative than Justice Kennedy (55% conservative in all cases and 59% in divided decisions.)"

What awaits Gorsuch
The 49-year-old justice will get no break between a grueling confirmation process and the last few months of a Supreme Court term.

As things stand now there are two more weeks scheduled for oral arguments.
One significant religious liberty case -- an issue that closely divides the justices — will be heard next week.

The case was granted shortly before Scalia's death, but the justices held off on setting it for argument, perhaps cognizant that it might need a tie breaking vote.

It involves a day care facility run by the Trinity Lutheran Church in Missouri. The church sought a state grant given to facilities that use recycled tires as a surface for playgrounds to improve safety.

Missouri awarded the grants to other non-profits, but said that the daycare facility was ineligible because the Missouri Constitution bars funding to churches. Lawyers for the church say the state's action violates the Constitution. It is set for argument on April 19.

There are several cases heard early in the term that have not yet been decided — that could be a sign that the judges are deadlocked. Although the rule is not set in stone, justices who haven't sat for oral arguments normally don't vote on the outcome of a case. Instead, if the court is equally divided, Chief Justice John Roberts might order the cases re-argued.

One case that seemed close during oral argument concerns a 15-year-old Mexican national who was shot to death in 2010 by a US Border Patrol agent standing on American soil. The teenager was cowering behind a pillar just across the border in Mexico.

The family of Sergio Hernandez is seeking to sue the border official for their son's death. They say the agent violated Hernandez's constitutional rights.

The violent shooting was caught on cellphone video and sparked outrage because of the fact that Hernandez was unarmed. The case comes with the backdrop of tension between the Trump administration and Mexico over the issue of building a wall between the two countries.

Another case, Jennings v. Rodriguez, grapples with whether it is unlawful to subject thousands of immigrants fighting deportation to long-term detention without individualized bond hearings. The case is brought by a class of immigrants who seek hearings to prove that they are neither a flight risk nor a danger to society.

And Sessions v. Morales deals with an immigration statute that applies citizenship requirements for a child born of a US citizen father more stringently than a US citizen mother when they are unwed and their child is born abroad.

Gorsuch's work won't be confined just oral arguments however. He will join his colleagues in the ornate conference room for a regular conference to discuss whether to take up new cases for next term.

Before them now is a another religious liberty case concerning a Colorado cake artist who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple. The controversy arose in July 2012 when David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Casekeshop to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. The shop is owned by Jack Phillips who has been designing cakes for 22 years. He told the couple he couldn't create a cake honoring same-sex marriage because doing so would conflict with his sincerely held religious beliefs. The couple field a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division which found that Phillips had violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. Lower courts ruled in favor of the couple.

There is also a simmering dispute concerning a voting rights law in North Carolina.
The court could also take up a case that asks whether the Second Amendment allows citizens to carry concealed handguns outside the home for self defense.
Conservatives are frustrated that the court hasn't taken up a major Second Amendment case since Scalia's landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to hown a gun in the house for self defense.

Other cases are still at the appellate court level, but could make their way to the court in the coming weeks and months.

In May, federal appeals courts will hear challenges to Trump's revised travel ban. There's always the possibility that the Court might be asked to rule on an emergency motion coming from those cases.

RELATED: US President Donald Trump signs new travel ban, exempts Iraq
And last week a federal appeals court issued a big victory for LGBT rights supporters. The court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBT workers — it's an issue that might eventually hit the court.
\
Interestingly after the 7th Circuit issued the opinion in the case, Sen. Chuck Schumer sent out a tweet in a last bid effort to keep Gorsuch off the bench.

Another aspect of this nomination battle has to do with the filibuster.

Dick Morris claims that Shumer was played for a fool in this battle. He went along with part of his caucus to impose discipline on the Democrat Senators. (A couple of them, up for election in 2018 in states Trump carried, were allowed to vote with the majority, but the rank and file rejected Gorsuch's candidacy.) Now the Democrats have no leverage.

The reason is that the filibuster rule no longer applies to Supreme Court nominations, which in turn means that Trump will get his other picks without a problem because now all that is required is a simple majority, and the Republicans have that. Some of the Supreme Court justices are of advanced years. Ginsberg is 84, Kennedy is 81, and Breyer is 79. Chances are pretty good that one of them will die or retire in the next little while.

So Shumer may well have opened the door to Trump, and allow him to 'stack' the court with people who thnk their role is merely to interpret and apply the law, rather than solve social problems.

Judge Neil Gorsuch took the first of two oaths to be sworn in as the newest Supreme Court justice Monday, having survived a grueling confirmation process where he faced Democrats still angry over Republicans' blockade of former President Barack Obama's nominee last year.

Gorsuch took the Constitutional Oath in a private ceremony, administered by Chief Justice John Roberts in the Supreme Court’s Justice’s Conference Room. He was accompanied by his wife Louise, who held the Bible, and his two daughters. That oath will be followed by a public ceremony at the White House where Justice Anthony Kennedy – Gorsuch’s former boss – will administer the Judicial Oath.

Gorsuch takes the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February last year, and whom Gorsuch has been compared favorably to by conservatives hopeful for another originalist on the court.

Gorsuch is likely to cast a deciding vote in a number of high-profile cases, which in part explains the terse and partisan hearing the 49-year-old faced. The high stakes led Republicans to trigger the “nuclear option” last week to kill the 60-vote filibuster threshold for Supreme Court nominees.

Here’s a preview of what the soon-to be Justice Gorsuch will be looking at:

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley

Seen as the hot-button case of the Court’s sitting, this case involves a Lutheran preschool in Missouri that was denied state funds to improve a playground due to a law banning prohibiting government aid to schools with religious affiliations. Trinity Lutheran and supporters are hoping that, given Gorsuch’s rulings on past church-state issues, he will back them in this one.

Weaver v. Massachusetts and Davila v. Davis

The first case surrounds a 16-year-old who murdered a 15-year-old in 2003, and his lawyers claim his Sixth Amendment rights were violated and he was given inadequate representation after a court kept his family locked out while a jury was selected and his lawyers did not object.

The Davila case involves a Texas gang member convicted of killing a 5-year-old and her grandmother in a shooting. But lawyers claim he was given ineffective counsel, and specifically they question the legal remedies given to capital defendants.

Maslenjak v. U.S.

Justices will hear the case of an ethnic Serb from Bosnia, who was stripped of U.S. citizenship for lying about how she came to the country. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled that a naturalized citizen can be stripped of citizenship in a criminal proceeding based on immaterial false statements. Gorsuch’s record is unclear on immigration issues, and he only ruled on a few in his time on the 10th Circuit.

This case involves the question of whether certain class-action securities lawsuits can be barred because they were filed too late.

The retirement fund in California has sued various financial institutions over their alleged role in the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers.

How the justices rule in this case is expected to have serious consequences for institutional investors and also will determine whether putative class members must file individual complaints before the three-year period imposed by Section 13 of the Securities Act has run out.

Fox News’ Bill Mears and Andrew O’Reilly and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Another aspect of this nomination battle has to do with the filibuster.

Dick Morris claims that Shumer was played for a fool in this battle. He went along with part of his caucus to impose discipline on the Democrat Senators. (A couple of them, up for election in 2018 in states Trump carried, were allowed to vote with the majority, but the rank and file rejected Gorsuch's candidacy.) Now the Democrats have no leverage.

The reason is that the filibuster rule no longer applies to Supreme Court nominations, which in turn means that Trump will get his other picks without a problem because now all that is required is a simple majority, and the Republicans have that. Some of the Supreme Court justices are of advanced years. Ginsberg is 84, Kennedy is 81, and Breyer is 79. Chances are pretty good that one of them will die or retire in the next little while.

So Shumer may well have opened the door to Trump, and allow him to 'stack' the court with people who thnk their role is merely to interpret and apply the law, rather than solve social problems.

the democrats do seem to be the big loser at the moment , they went all out to try and stop a judge that was seen as a sensible choice by many people . now its not clear how they would stop trump from appointing another judge to the court ? without the filibuster option there isn't much else left .

unless the numbers in the senate change they'd need to convince republican senators to vote against the nominee and bring back the 3 democrats who drifted away

it seems like there opposition to trump is far too misguided and widespread to even be effective . when your simply against anything a politician is doing , it sometimes makes you look off focus and purely negative without your own agenda .

Judge Gorsuch was about as squeaky clean and unobjectionable of a Justice nominee as you will find amongst GOP Presidential nominations, more so when compared to GOP Presidential nominations when the GOP controls both houses.

The objection really had more to do with the fact that he wasn't Judge Garland and the hope that this "Resist" movement will yield some control of either house in the next election than Gorsuch's fitness for the bench.

Now the GOP can nominate pretty much whomever they want;

Lets say for the sake of Argument Mike Lee or Thomas Hardiman were nominated, these are guys even moderate Republican Senators could take issue with and its far less likely that a moderate Senator (Susan Collins - Maine as an example) is going to burn capital voting for the Nuclear Option to make way for a nominee that may be a little less mainstream.

Whatever else people say about Trump, he seems to be able to attract talent and select candidates far better than any recent President. He will avoid these pitfalls because he is a pragmatist.

People want to demonize Trump, in part because he (like O'Leary) hasn't served a long apprenticeship in the party he leads. So they accuse him of exremism, racism, all that stuff that leftists use to discredit their opponents. But the truth is, Trump is the least ideological, most pragmatic President since Eisenhower.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum